RE: Correction to uranium toxicity posting

["Brennan, Martin Jr" <mbrenn@sandia.gov>]

I'm not adding this to be critical by any means, I realize the discussion
was focused on DU and there is no question that for DU, as well as U-Nat,
Class D material is more bio-toxic than radio-toxic.  It would be worth
noting, however, that as U-235 enrichment occurs, the concern shifts from
bio to radio-toxicity.  As % U-235 increases, so does U-234 and thus the
mixed specific activity.  Depending on the enrichment, mixed specific
activity may become more than 100 X greater than is the case of U-Nat.  This
is not to say that the potential renal effects should be ignored with
enriched uranium. I simply point this out so that one does not automatically
ignore radiological dose due to an intake of uranium simply because it is in
a Class D form.

Martin J. Brennan
SNL/NM


-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth M. Brackett [mailto:brackett@bright.net]
Sent: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:38 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Correction to uranium toxicity posting


Sorry - it's been brought to my attention that I reversed soluble and
insoluble uranium in my previous post.  SOLUBLE uranium poses a chemical
hazard to the kidneys, not insoluble, which is retained in the lungs for
quite a long time.

Liz Brackett

******************************
  Elizabeth M. Brackett, CHP 
     Sr. Health Physicist     
     MJW Corporation, Inc.       
       (330) 644-3757        
  mailto:brackett@bright.net 
******************************
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html